<cesare.di.mauro@gmail.com> wrote:
> It isn't, because motivation to do something new with CPython vanishes, at
> least on some areas (virtual machine / ceval.c), even having some ideas to
> experiment with. That's why in my last talk on EuroPython I decided to move
> on other areas (Python objects).

Cesare, I'm really sorry that you became so disillusioned that you
abandoned wordcode. I agree that we were too optimistic about Unladen
Swallow. Also that the existence of PyPy and its PR machine (:-)
should not stop us from improving CPython.

I never stopped thinking about new optimization. A lot can be made on CPython, even without resorting to something like JIT et all.
">

(original) (raw)

2011/8/31 Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Cesare Di Mauro

> It isn't, because motivation to do something new with CPython vanishes, at
> least on some areas (virtual machine / ceval.c), even having some ideas to
> experiment with. That's why in my last talk on EuroPython I decided to move
> on other areas (Python objects).

Cesare, I'm really sorry that you became so disillusioned that you
abandoned wordcode. I agree that we were too optimistic about Unladen
Swallow. Also that the existence of PyPy and its PR machine (:-)
should not stop us from improving CPython.

I never stopped thinking about new optimization. A lot can be made on CPython, even without resorting to something like JIT et all.

I'm wondering if, with your experience in creating WPython, you could
review Stefan Brunthaler's code and approach (once he's put it up for
review) and possibly the two of you could even work on a joint
project?

\--
\--Guido van Rossum (python.org/\~guido)


Yes, I can. I'll wait for Stefan to update its source (reaching Python 3.2 at least) as he has intended to do, and that everything is published, in order to review the code.

I also agree with you that right now it doesn't need to look as state-of-the-art. First make it work, then make it nicer. ;)

Regards,
Cesare